From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757132Ab0CaXz7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25620 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754322Ab0CaXz6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:53:53 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , Badari Pulavarty , Christoph Hellwig , Janak Desai , Roland McGrath , Stanislaw Gruszka , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_unshare: simplify the not-really-implemented CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND/VM code Message-ID: <20100331235353.GA7565@redhat.com> References: <20100323170816.GA20809@redhat.com> <20100323230526.GA9932@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100323230526.GA9932@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > That said, I do not really care about this cleanup. I did it just because > I sent another patch which touches check_unshare_flags(), and I was really > surprised that ~70 lines in kernel/fork.c do nothing but confuse the reader. I changed my mind. I do care ;) Seriously, Eric, it is just stupid this code does nothing but complicates fork.c, and unless you prove this patch is wrong you can't convince me this patch is bad idea. > Please nack this patch and lets forget it ;) Yes. You have all rights to nack it and I won't insist even if I disagree. But please do this explicitly, otherwise I'll resend it. Oleg.